Boards

Seems like some internet people are see the portrayal of transgender people as offensive in the movie, but overall I thought the group was portrayed fine- the character had depth, and was certainly more than a stereotype imo, even if some of the things that the character did were.

but what I read mostly seemed to indicate that people were irritated because they could have cast an actual transperson* in the role or something, which is fair enough I guess. I haven't seen the film so can't comment any further

quick google led me to this article (by a trans woman which is fairly positive about the film whilst also expressing disappointment that almost invariably cis actors are cast to play trans characters...)

'But is it an Oscar-worthy performance? No. As a transgender campaigner I’ve met a great many trans people. I can’t speak for all of us, but I know a fair few and probably more than you do. And Rayon isn’t quite like anyone I’ve ever met.'

She's making the point that she found the character unlike any trans person she's ever met - i.e. a fairly unrealistic portrayal. She's qualifying the point by saying she could well be wrong as she's not met every trans person ever. But given that (according to her), she's met a lot of trans people, she's in a relatively informed position to base her point on her own experiences. Like, I wouldn't personally say I've met a lot of trans people and so wouldn't necessarily know whether a trans character was very well-written or acted. Do you find it odd that Paris Lees would claim to know more trans people than the average Independent reader? What is odd about that?

I guess I just don't find it "odd". didn't find it particularly "smug" either tbh cause I doubt its the case that people who say stuff like that are just really full of themselves. to me it seems more likely that she's used to having to talk to people who are really ignorant about trans stuff (which is a lot of people sadly). meh.

thought it was weird how they kind of crowbarred in the relationship with Mcconaughey and Jennifer Garner, like the movie couldn't survive without a heterosexual love interest thing going on. Garner just appearing everywhere like Dick Van dycke in Diagnosis Murder

The Rayon character isn't always shown as the most balanced or happy character but it's implied that that's more as a result of other people's reactions rather than a result of her being trans. I think the most important thing is that she's a fully developed character who is trans rather than a character who's only defined by being trans. The same can be said for the gay characters in the film as well, none of whom bare much resemblance to the shrieking stereotypes that appear in the majority of Hollywood films.

There's definitely something to the fact she wasn't played by a trans actor, but that's a bigger indictment of Hollywood itself. I'd also be very surprised if any of the gay characters were played by gay men. It's been mentioned before but mainstream cinema is still a fair few miles behind most other industries when it comes to employing people who are openly gay.

It deals with its subject matter in an intelligent, in no way heavy-handed way. As legitimate a problem it may be, it's hardly the grounds for labelling the film as objectively trans-misogynist, in my view.

there seem to be a lot of very nuanced critiques of this film from transgender writers. The autostraddle one that came up on that search is definitely worth reading. The writers opinion of the film is basically that it:

"fails to break the pattern of transphobic narratives in cinema"

Which is different from saying the film is in itself transphobic. Reducing all the critiques of this film to an accusation of ''transmisogyny" (which I'm pretty sure is only a 'big deal' because ONE PERSON said it to the director at a q&a) is a really gross simplicifation.